Often times when involved in conversation about Rwanda’s current social and political affair, many people defend the current administration by excusing its past crimes as accidental to necessary social and political development of the country in various forms of “It had to be done. It just had to! And seeing how well off the people are now and how much off they would have been (especially the minorities), it’s excusable.”

The people whose lives were lost are characterized as simply collateral, rendering the current government’s past actions immune to law and punishment. In these people’s eyes, the current Rwandan government is filled with heroes who should be celebrated, instead of punished for crimes which unfortunately still continue today.

So let’s consider the killings of 4 million civilians as collateral, who does the current government have to kill in order for their crimes to “count” and be punishable by law. Hmm let’s see…since attacking a peaceful country, for no good reason, other than to take over power and kill its citizens on the way are not good enough reasons…How about the killing of a president? Would that count for something? Maybe not…how about TWO presidents? How about then? Would they still be the anointed saviors that they are today?

Here is an excerpt from a recent article by Andrew G. Marshall entitled, “Western Involvement in the Rwandan Genocide” where we can perhaps draw some conclusions as to why these guys aren’t going to be held to the same standards as anyone else.

The years [when Rwanda was attacked by the RPF from Uganda wearing Ugandan Military Uniforms] and the genocide itself took place during a time when Madeline Albright was Bill Clinton‘s Ambassador to the United Nations and Kofi Annan was the head of the UN’s peacekeeping operations. Investigative journalist Wayne Madsen alleged in his book, Jaded Tasks: Brass Plates, Black Ops, & Big Oil, that Albright and Annan ignored evidence that the US backed Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) was responsible for the April 6, 1994 terrorist missile attack on the aircraft carrying the Hutu president of Rwanda.[21]

Madsen explains that the initial RPF invasion of Rwanda from Uganda in 1990, “had the military backing of the first Bush administration [1989-1993], including Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney,” and that the aim of the RPF was to overthrow Rwanda’s Hutu president.[22] Madsen exposed how the RPF deputy leader, Paul Kagame was trained at US Army installations in the United States and when, during the 1990 invasion of Rwanda, the RPF’s leader was killed, “Kagame became the head of the guerrilla army, and his ties with the Pentagon, CIA, and State Department became closer.” Classified UN documents revealed that Annan and Albright were aware of this information.[23]

It came out in a French National Assembly inquiry that, “the U.S. even supplied the RPF with the Soviet-made surface-to-air missiles that were used to shoot down the Rwandan presidential aircraft,” and that a UN investigation team got a hold of information that, “a company linked to the CIA leased the warehouse used to assemble the missile launchers.”[24] However, the investigation was closed down once the relationship to the US was realized. (Emphasis mine)

BUT….BUT…BUT they SAVED Tutsis from the genocide!

Umm…yeah, THEY would like you to believe that to deflect from the fact that,

The Rwandan genocide occurred in 1994, but rose out of events in the late 80s and early 90s relating directly to Rwanda’s economy. This event was triggered by the assassination of Rwandan President Habyarimana in 1994, who was President during the1990 to 1993 [attack from the RPF with the aid of Uganda]. (emphasis mine)

But back to Rwanda’s well protected criminals. Allow me to use a very familiar analogy, that can be appropriately be applied to the relationship between the US, and Kagame and his administration. So the US/pimp protects its bitches/hoes until they become insolent. Look at Saddam and Mobutu. Kagame and his administration can be classified as one of America’s favorite African bitches right now. America will pimp it until it is no longer useful or at least until it becomes too messy to deal with. And whether it’s playing the role of America’s “hoe” right now, it is still not excused or absolved from it’s crimes.

People please, stop defending those criminals! A crime is a crime, and their crimes were crimes against humanity. They don’t get a pass just because they are another country’s hoe!

8 Responses

Hey, thanks for the comment on my blog and thanks for inviting me to view your site. I’ve responded to your comment on my site but I may repeat some of the same basic ideas here after reading your entry –

I am interested to know your position on where you thought these Tutsis that were exiled from Rwanda “belonged” if it was not in their country of origin? If you believe they “properly” lost their rights to the country when the Hutus exiled them 30 years prior, is this an action that the Hutus deserve no repercussion from? Was it okay that Uganda had to deal with such an influx of refugees due to the incapabilities of both Tutsi and Hutu to get along within both their native countries?

Regardless both the Hutu and Tutsi “lost their innocence” long ago and it’s time to stop laying blame as the last half-century has shown us does not solve the problems. I find it interesting and not at all improbable that the United States was involved in some respect with the assassination of Habyarimana but in reality we honestly just don’t know who made the assassination. With the heavy and obvious evidence you advocate for the case of the Tutsi-blame of the assassination there is the counter-evidence that Hutu-extremists seemed to be held by Habyarimana in implementing the planned genocide.

I think instead of attempting to lay blame entirely on the Tutsi it’s important to acknowledge that both factions have had their fair share of bloody actions. It should now be about what Hutu and Tutsi are willing to work together to reforge a nation…

of course we can continue the same course that has been going on for decades – at least we’re comfortable with the hateful aggression on both sides… but I don’t know if that’s the world that we all want to live in.

To answer some of your questions, I do believe that the Tutsis DID belong in Rwanda their country. It’s really hard for me to answer whether they lost their place “properly” or “improperly” considering that the social system that existed before was one of oppression against the Hutus. One would then have to questions the “proper”-ness of other social revolutions that occured around the world, and specifially in Africa around that time.

What I can say is that they had every right to try and negotiate means of power sharing — which they did, although it was amidst a bloodbath where innocent lives were lost. I don’t support war, and don’t support their actions during the early 1990 leading up to their actions today. They could have approached it differently.

During the 1990-1994 war, there were many aspects of the negotiations that the Rwanda government had agreed to, including making the army 50% Tutsi, which is a very big deal. They had negotiated cease fire agreements during that war, but the RPF refused to comply. Quite honestly, it doesn’t appear that they had any intention of power sharing. They wanted the power for themselves.

What I do find “improper” though, and reasons why I concentrate on this so much is the way the tale of what happened in 1994 was told. I have issues with lies that have been perpetuated by the media, and the way the rebels and their sympathizers committed/still commit massacres with IMPUNITY. Along with how the conflict has been characterized (Hutus are genocidaires, Hutu extremists vs moderate Hutus) and simplified into the attacker/hutu-victim/tutsi scenario, when it’s sooo much more complex than that.

Both sides definitely did have their “fair share of bloody actions” however, the media has disproportionately pinned the blame on one side, and whose people have been getting punished, while some are even innocent. Simply because the world believes they are “genocidaires” then they can be convicted of crimes they never committed.

Also, there IS evidence to show that the rebels were responsible for the missile attack of the Rwandan President’s plane, and not enough evidence for the “Hutu Extremists.”

Anyway, I appreciate comments such as the one you provided. Hopefully I’ll turn them into great posts.

If you are looking for evidence of the assassination of the former Rwandan president Habyarimana and his counterpart from Burundi Ntaryamira, please start by searching for “ABDUL Ruzibiza’s testimony”. Ruzibiza is a former body guard of Kagame. It lays out how it was all carried out by the Tutsi rebels led by Kagame. Also, look for Jean Pierre Mugabe’s testimony as well. Jean Pierre Mugabe’s is from around 2000 or 2001 and Ruzibiza is 2004 or 2005. Below is a link to the Ruzibiza testimony if you are interested.

This is just a short news article. Also, look for the French Judge Brugiere’s indictement against the RPF leaders:

That’s just a start. Evidence that the Tutsi rebels assassinated the Rwandan and Burundian presidents in 1994 is there. Even Stevie Wonder can see it. The reason you may not know it is because it has not been widely sold by the major media outlets.

The reason I didn’t know is because I’ve spent very little time focusing on issues in and around Rwanda. I may be an American but I do not wait for major media news outlets to spoon-feed me my information, I tend to search it out myself. But most of the information I did come across in dealing with Rwanda was because I was interested in learning about the Congo and Rwanda is now heavily a part of the Congolese past.

The information you provided Champ seems likely between the testimony and the French findings.

[…] the convoluted and deliberately misleading propaganda. Andrew G. Marshal wrote a piece titled Western Involvement in the Rwandan Genocide, which is self explanatory. He pointed out major players in the conflict in the Clinton […]